4 ms·

Then people will have to come to terms that banning Alex Jones was a bad idea too. You can't support a companies right to ban people you don't like while simult

by um_ya 8y ago

Then people will have to come to terms that banning Alex Jones was a bad idea too. You can't support a companies right to ban people you don't like while simultaneously advocating protections as a utility.

jchw 8y ago
I mean, you can get expelled from public schools.
- rory096 8y ago
  Not for constitutionally protected speech (under the limitations on student speech set by Tinker's "substantial disruption" test, Fraser's "indecent" limitation, and similar jurisprudence). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment...
sequoia 8y ago
They don't want to be regarded as a utility as that would suggest that regulation is a reasonable course of action. They banned Jones in part to demonstrate that they can "self-regulate" and don't need regulation. Being seen as a utility is the last thing Facebook wants.
monetus 8y ago
Yes, universal access to the utility makes sense. But what would the utility be? Could FB possibly be nationalized? It's international at its core. If governments created a copycat, it could fragment social media by country, which seems bad. I like the protective intent, but barely have an idea of how it might be implemented.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  Centralized social media isn't long for this world IMO, look at what is happening to Twitter (userbase erosion) & Reddit (people are flooding there from Facebook, hurting site quality). Meanwhile notable figures have moved on from both sites, in part due to bans or purely due to the degradation of their former social home.
Spooky23 8y ago
Utilities are limited in how they can raise money... tariffs are the core of utility regulation. Alex Jones and other fringe elements with disproportionate large reach wouldn’t exist on a regulated utility because the advertising practices that allow Facebook to monetize Jones would likely not exist.

by um_ya 8y ago

jchw 8y ago

I mean, you can get expelled from public schools.

rory096 8y ago
Not for constitutionally protected speech (under the limitations on student speech set by Tinker's "substantial disruption" test, Fraser's "indecent" limitation, and similar jurisprudence). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment...

sequoia 8y ago

They don't want to be regarded as a utility as that would suggest that regulation is a reasonable course of action. They banned Jones in part to demonstrate that they can "self-regulate" and don't need regulation. Being seen as a utility is the last thing Facebook wants.

monetus 8y ago

Yes, universal access to the utility makes sense. But what would the utility be? Could FB possibly be nationalized? It's international at its core. If governments created a copycat, it could fragment social media by country, which seems bad. I like the protective intent, but barely have an idea of how it might be implemented.

StudentStuff 8y ago
Centralized social media isn't long for this world IMO, look at what is happening to Twitter (userbase erosion) & Reddit (people are flooding there from Facebook, hurting site quality). Meanwhile notable figures have moved on from both sites, in part due to bans or purely due to the degradation of their former social home.

Spooky23 8y ago

Utilities are limited in how they can raise money... tariffs are the core of utility regulation. Alex Jones and other fringe elements with disproportionate large reach wouldn’t exist on a regulated utility because the advertising practices that allow Facebook to monetize Jones would likely not exist.